After I had composed the main body of this text, I ran across the Cursus Theologicus by John of St. Thomas–specifically, the tract entitled De Auctoritate Summi Pontificis [Concerning the Authority of the Supreme Pontiff]. In a surprisingly detailed commentary about the problem of an heretical pope, he ended up making the very same argument that I have proposed. Instead of weaving quotations from his work into their appropriate place within my exposition, I decided to give him a separate section. I felt that the argument would be more convincing if readers knew that the two of us had arrived at the same conclusion independently, i.e., that I have not been merely “rehashing” what he had written. Instead, both of us have simply followed a line of thinking dictated by an inner logic of its own.

...By the Church’s authority, a Council is able to be convened. That authority resides in the bishops, or in a majority of them. For the Church has the right from God to separate itself from a heretical pope and, consequently, to apply all the means that are in and of themselves necessary for such a separation. But it is a necessary means–and in and of it-self–that such a crime be established juridically. Yet it cannot be established juridically unless a competent judgment be formed. In so grave a matter, however, there cannot be a competent judgment except through a General Council. Since this matter deals with the universal head of the Church, it therefore pertains to the judgment of the Universal Church. That judgment is a General Council.

As a result, the principles–which sometimes maintain that the deposition of a Pontiff belongs to God alone and at other times that he can be judged by inferiors in the case of heresy–come to be reconciled. Both are true. To God alone is reserved the casting out or deposition of a Pontiff (authoritatively and principally. Yet (ministerially and executionally) the Church makes judgment about a Pontiff by declaring the crime and proposing that the pope should be avoided...

In response, a heretic must be avoided as a result of two rebukes that have been made juridically–by the Church’s authority and not according to private judgment. Great confusion would result in the Church if it would suffice that this rebuke should be made by a private individual....Consequently, we see what the practice of the Church has been. When a pope needed to be deposed, the case was treated first in a General Council before he was considered not to be a pope....

St. Jerome–in saying that a heretic departs on his own from the Body of Christ–does not preclude the Church’s judgment, especially in so grave a matter as is the deposition of a pope. He refers instead to the nature of that crime, which is such as to cut someone off from the Church on its own and without any other censure in addition to it–yet only so long as it should be declared by the Church. Although it separates from the Church on its own, the fact of separation does not make itself known to us without that declaration.

...So long as he has not become declared to us juridically as an infidel or heretic, be he ever so manifestly heretical according to private judgment, he remains as far as we are concerned a member of the Church, and consequently its head. Judgment is required from the Church, therefore, a judgment by which he would be proposed as not a Christian and to be avoided. It is only then that he ceases to be pope as far as we are concerned. As a result, however, he would not have ceased to be such even in and of himself, since all the things which he enacted had force in and of themselves.

I have translated the expression quoad nos very loosely throughout. In point of fact, it represents a highly technical term–the equivalent of “criteriologically.” Many theologians would probably disagree with the very last assertion in the citation above, i.e., that a manifestly heretical pope would remain pope even ontologically until it had been determined otherwise criteriologically. I maintain, however, that John of St. Thomas was–rather brilliantly– taking to its logical conclusion a principle already found in most of the theologians who had dealt with this question. Few theologians actually held that a secretly heretical pope would be deposed ipso facto, the reason being that membership in the Church needs to be a visible reality (so that it could be verified criteriologically). Otherwise, the Church might fall into chaos if the activities of secret heretics would in reality be null and void. Ontologically, however, even a secret heretic would cease to be a Catholic before God. Yet membership in the Church does not simply represent a visible–though still only ontologically manifest–reality, but a juridically visible reality, i.e., criteriologically manifest–manifest in the true sense of this term. Holding jurisdiction depends upon the juridical reality of membership in the Church. With this principle, John of St. Thomas ingeniously reconciled the long-standing dispute between the papa haereticus ipso facto depositus [heretical pope ipso facto deposed] and the papa haereticus deponendus [heretical pope to be deposed] schools.

So, it depends upon the understanding of membership in the Church, which is what we've been saying for many years, based upon St. Robert. And guess what? He's the Doctor of the Church and the expert on ecclesiology, and he disagrees with John of St. Thomas on membership. A secret heretic is not "a non-member before God but we can't know it"; a secret heretic is a Catholic, a member of the Mystical Body, before God and man. A public heretic is a non-Catholic, before God and man. The distinction, ingenius I agree, that John of St. Thomas draws, is simply irrelevant.

Why won't these people take their lead from the Church, for which Robert Bellarmine is Doctor, and John of St. Thomas merely another approved theologian?

_________________In Christ our King.

Sun Nov 16, 2014 1:40 pm

Jorge Armendariz

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pmPosts: 210

Re: John Of St. Thomas on the Pope-Heretic Question

Yes, John of St. Thomas at least one of his solutions is refuted by both the Old Code and the new Code of Canon Law (I mention the New since most sedeplenist would consider it as authoritative). A General Council can only be convened by the Pope and no one else according to the law, so that particular solution is not possible.

Thus the proposed solution of papal deposition, would be just as canonical as Mr. Bowden's "election" to the Papacy .

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum